Here, orthodox means the English equivalent of the Greek orthodoxia (from orthos, “right,” and doxa, “opinion”), which is right belief, as opposed to heresy or heterodoxy.  The term orthodox is not Biblical; no Christian writer uses it before the second century.  The word expresses the idea that certain statements accurately embody the revealed truth content of Christianity, and are therefore in their own nature proper for the Universal Church.  This idea is rooted in the New Testament insistence that the Gospel has a specific factual and theological content and that no fellowship should exist with those who deny it.

With so many faith choices today, all under the claimed title “Christianity,” how can a seeker or a believer identify the boundaries demarcating authentic belief from false teaching or an orthodox church from the counterfeit?  Traditionally, the declaration of a clear statement of beliefs, called a “Creed” or a “Rule of Faith,” accomplished this need.  During the early centuries of Christianity, Gnosticism presented a severe threat to the Church.  Many Gnostic sects claimed the title “Christian,” yet did not believe in the God detailed in the Old Testament and did not believe Jesus Christ was divine - the Son of God.  The crux of the “Creed” for defining orthodoxy lay in the assertion of the unity of the divine plan from Old Testament to New and the detailing of a short summary of the main revelatory events of the redemptive process.  Until the post modern era the traditional creedal statements had adequately anchored the faith of adherents, fulfilled the need for a basis of unity, and exposed most heretical doctrines.  But today, in this era of unprecedented medical, pharmaceutical and biological technologies and the equally unparalleled moral-social liberalism encouraged and enabled by their use, the Apostles Creed and like bodied Rules of Faith are no longer sufficient to confidently identify authentic Christianity.  The traditional creedal tenets are no less crucial; they still contain irreplaceable truths.  However, much like the situation faced by the Early Church with Gnosticism, the contemporary problem is the poor scriptural integrity of most of the declarations of liberal-minded “Christians” and the harm done by what their churches omit to declare.  These “professed” believers no longer walk or talk the Gospel truth and no longer use the Bible as the ultimate authority (revelation) for confirming God’s will.  Their lay leadership and clergy are often deliberately vague and elusive about certain details of the authentic faith, thereby misleading their followers.  Many in this category, refuse to recognize or acknowledge the double mindedness (irrationality) of their theological assertions.  Developed well before the eras of the so-called “Technological Society” and of “Liberal Christianity;” before these happenings had reached their present heights, the traditional creeds do not adequately address contemporary issues like: abortion, contraception, homosexual liberation, euthanasia, baby production, genetic engineering and so on. 

Today, we find most Christians asserting that abortion on-demand is the wanton murder of an innocent life, and yet other “Christians” declare that women have a God-given right to have abortions.  Is this type of controversy a serious matter?  The Apostle Paul in his letter to the church at Corinth warns: “Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the Gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand.  By this Gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you.  Otherwise, you have believed in vain” (1 Corinthians 15:1-2).   What we do (and do not) profess matters.  The Church that the Holy Spirit constitutes, and the Gospel to which Paul refers in his letter, do not embody double minded truth revelations: one pro-abortion, the other against; one pro-contraception, the other against; one pro-same-sex marriage, the other against.  Although many wish it were so, these matters are not minor issues upon which Christians can agree to disagree on, and then continue in fellowship.  [More will be said on these topics later in this website with the goal of debugging the tragic notion that the Holy Spirit is somehow bi-polar, having one counsel for the orthodox and another contradictory revelation for liberal-minded “Christians.”]